The Three Prior Plots to kill JFK

[Steve Thomas]

9 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Steve, Stu and I explore Milteer in a fair amount of detail...  in general was a right wing political gadfly...

Larry,

 

Thanks. That was a good choice of words.

 

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

But regardless, I agree (that) this was a cold, impersonal killing. Military precision and planning.

Joe,

 

As you put it, Willie Somersett asked the essential question:

 

SOMERSETT: “Well how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him”?

 

That's it in a nutshell.

 

The way I see it, is that the people who conceived the idea, were not the same people who planned it.

The people who planned it were not the same people who carried it out.

The people who carried it out were not the same people who covered it up.

 

I think Oliver Stone had it right in the basic outline. JFK's assassination was conceived by a cabal consisting of a military guy, a mob guy, a military-industrial guy and a spy guy at a minimum.

 

You had a small group of men sitting in the cigar-smoke filled den of somebody's home, or the private dining room of the Navy Club or whatever, and somebody says, “That sum-a-bitch Kennedy has got to go”. And the group says, “Hear, hear”.

 

And somebody in the group turns to the military guy and asks, “General, you kill people for a living. What do you think would be the best way to carry it out”? And the military guy says, “If I wanted to ensure success, I'd set up enfilading fields of fire, and with a crossfire, hit him from the front and the back, and the side so that there would be no chance of escape”.

 

And somebody turns to the mob guy and says, “You take contracts out on people all the time. Do you have any killers out there who could pull it off”?

 

And the mob guy says, “Yeah, we got a stable full of guys. I could bring in some people from out of town, and maybe even from out of the country.

 

And somebody in the group says, “Well, if they're from out of town, they're not going to be familiar with the territory. And the military guys says, “I know some people from the local Army Reserve down there who could help with transportation, and lodging and escape routes and stuff”.

 

And somebody in the group says, “That's going to cost a lot of money, what with the contract, and all the arrangements. And the military-industrial guy says, “I can take care of that – maybe even pay them off in heroin so there's no paper trail. And the mob guy says, “I could do that too.”

 

And somebody in the group turns to the spy guy and asks, “Secret Agent man, you deal in smoke and mirrors for a living, how could it be done so that it couldn't be traced back to us?” And the spy guy says, “Don't worry. There are so many people out there with a grudge against Kennedy that I'll plant so many false leads leading back to the mafia, and the anti-Castro people and so on, that people will be chasing their tails for years. We've also got ways to finger some poor dumb schmuck to take the fall.”

 

And somebody says, “Yeah, but we've also got to screw up the physical evidence and the body.”

And (probably the military guy) says, “I can do that with my local contacts down there, and make sure we have control of the autopsy.”

 

And everything is compartmentalized that no single person knows the full extent of the plot, only their small part of it. The group decides to execute this plan when JFK is out of town and decides on several opportunities, Chicago, Miami and Dallas.

 

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

[George Sawtelle]

Steve

The original cover-up was simple. Blame it on the patsy. Three shots with one rifle, lone gunman working for Castro. Now we have our pretext for invading Cuba and ridding ourselves of Castro forever.

But the plotters did not plan on the Zapruder Film. The Zap film changed a simple cover-up into a complicated one that had to be worked by the seat of their pants. Why are so many people convinced of a cover-up? Because it wasn't well thought out it had to be done on the fly. This is a cover-up that relies on the single bullet theory ... that should tell you something about the planning of the cover-up.

The plotters planned and executed the assassination and conducted the cover-up. However the cover-up wasn't all their doing. They had help.

[Michael Clark]

The Zapruder film proves conspiracy. Two patsies would have been far easier to frame for the assassination than one, and far fewer questions would have been raised. Dissent and doubt is tolerated far less when men are fighting a large, justified war. That's one reason why I believe the shooters were anti-Castro Cubans, and they got double-crossed. The second patsy was obscured and disappeared to remove the pre-text for war; and that is also why the Mexico City evidence that turned-up was bogus. Guantanamo, it was decided, was more easily held in an antagonistic relationship with Cuba, and with Castro alive, than with any friendly, sovereign government; and any friendly, sovereign, Cuban government would be of Catholic, Spanish speaking, swarthy people who catered to the Mafia, and competed with tourism, and proliferated drugs, and gambling. The conversion to the lone nut scenario was highly risky and, in truth, a failure, as most people don't, and never have, believed it. The maintainence of Guantanamo, the isolation of an undesirable race of people, and the denial of mafia interests was, however, successful. The double-cross was the doings of the southern racist radical right; but they did not do the deed. That's my CT, minus some ancillary spider legs and other perps. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Michael Clark
Heavily edited. I should just stop posting. Is anyone else still scarred from the "save it or lose it" WordPerfect days?